ML12037A058

E-mail from K. Manoly, NRR to C. Munson, NRO; Subject: Briefing Slides for Comm GI 199 and North Anna

ML12037A058
Person / Time
Site:	North Anna
Issue date:	08/30/2011
From:	Kamal Manoly Division of Engineering
To:	Clifford Munson, Stutzke M NRC/NRO/DSEA, NRC/RES/DRA
References
FOIA/PA-2011-0357
Download: ML12037A058 (2)

Text

DE FOIA Resource From: Manoly, Kamal Sent: Tuesday, August U, 2011 11:25 AM To: Munson, Clifford; Stutzke, Martin Cc: Khanna, Meena; Laur, Steven; Li, Yong; Wilson, George; Hiland, Patrick; Laur, Steven

Subject:

RE: briefing slides for Comm GI 199 and North Anna

Cliff, You are saying the same thing. We use it as a basis for decision threshold.

From: Munson, Clifford {N('{LP Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 11:04 AM To: Manoly, Kamal; Stutzke, Martin Cc: Khanna, Meena; Laur, Steven; Li, Yong; Wilson, George; Hiland, Patrick; Laur, Steven

Subject:

RE: briefing slides for Comm GI 199 and North Anna

Kamal, We cannot use delta SCDF as a barometer because we don't have a reliable baseline for comparison. IPEEE does not provide reliable SCDF values except for perhaps a few plants. In the generic letter we use 10-5 as the value forcomparison.

Cliff From: Manoly, Kamal \xw,*-

Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 10:55 AM To: Stutzke, Martin Cc: Khanna, Meena; Laur, Steven; Munson, Clifford; Li, Yong; Wilson, George; Hiland, Patrick; Laur, Steven

Subject:

RE: briefing slides for Comm GI 199 and North Anna M arty, I indicated the intent with respect to asking licensees to evaluate plants' seismic risk using current guidance in RG 1.208 and the notion of using delta SCDF as a barometer for potential future regulatory action. None of that stuff is in their licensing basis.

From: Stutzke, Martin Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 10:47 AM To: Wilson, George Cc: Khanna, Meena; Laur, Steven; Munson, Clifford; Manoly, Kamal; Li, Yong

Subject:

RE: briefing slides for Comm GI 199 and North Anna Importance: High I've got a drug test at 11:30. I'll come to the pre-briefing as soon as I'm done or otherwise catch up with you in Commissioner Magwood's office.

I don't necessarily agree that the proposed GL meets the intent of the NTTF recommendations for several reasons:

1. An order is not a GL (which is request).

2. If we require plants to update their seismic design bases to meet current NRC requirements and guidance (e.g., RG 1.208), then there's no need to do any seismic risk evaluation (SPRA or SMA).

I 76 I./

10 The purpose of the SPRA/SMA approach used in the GL is to help identify cost justified backfits; however, the issuance of an order implies we are re-defining adequate protection (costs become irrelevant).

Marty From: Wilson, George } '"-"_

Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 10:01 AM To: Croteau, Rick; Giitter, Joseph; Hiland, Patrick; Skeen, David; Manoly, Kamal; Munson, Clifford; Laur, Steven; Stutzke, Martin; Howe, Allen; Lund, Louise; ,Boger, Bruce; Grobe, Jack; Leeds, Eric; McHale, John; Bowman, Gregory; Dean, Bill Cc: Martin, Robert; Kulesa, Gloria

Subject:

briefing slides for Comm GI 199 and North Anna See attached, Greg please remove the talking points prior to giving to commission offices George Wilson USNRC EICB Branch Chief, Division of Engineering Mail Stop 012H2 301-415-1711 2